Vlad the Impaler

The premise of this thread was a bit suspicious from the beginning because it invited people to judge Vlad and Mehmet from modern standards.  In the study of history, this is anachronistic.  I, as well as others I am sure, appreciated the input of Beylerbeyi and Chilbudios, who discussed Vlad and Mehmet II in the context of the sources and the 15th century.  But not many commented on what these individuals posted. 

So apparently only unfavourable sources are avcceptable for Mehmet II but only favourable one for Vlad?

Maybe I do not find chronicles about morbid humour but I can find plenty about (apparently) unnecessary cruelty and massacring the (apparent) innocents. As we were on Mehmed, here's on from the conquest of Otranto in 1480 (at the end of his reign, but not an army led by him):

Edited by Chilbudios - 07-Oct-2007 at 22:04

Originally posted by Reginmund Yes, I think this distinction is valid. There are few if any signs that Mehmed II did what he did out of sadistic cruelty, he seems to have been for too pragmatic for such senseless self-indulgence. Fratricide, raiding, looting, impaling and executing high officials who failed in their duties were all part of Ottoman power politics, Mehmed himself did not set any precedence here. Vlad, on the other hand, if the sources are to be believed at least, enjoyed what he did and often based his  capricious punishments on little else than morbid humour.

I don't think this difference can stand on a more serious analysis. There plenty of testimonies with Mehmed II (or his army, not necessarily led by him) mass-executing and impaling the civilian people from various villages and settlements and not only (like that Venetian ship which attempted to cross the Bosphorus in 1452, whose captain was impaled and the crew decapitated) and as well there are testimonies with Vlad doing whatever cruel acts as a "power politics" and not "capricious punishments on little else than morbit humour". Laonikos Chalkokondyles, a Byzantine chroncler of the 15th century, says that his executions were for strengthening his rule and the reorganization of Dacia (Wallachia) in the eventual conflict with the Ottoman Empire. Some Raguzan chroncles even give the name Dragul(a) with the etymology "dear, loved" and paint Vlad as a true Christian champion against the Ottomans. Many chronicles paint his cruel acts as being targeted only against villains and that by them Wallachia succeeded to become a very safe land. Sieveing for Vlad only the hostile accounts and taking for other ruthless rulers of his time only the elogious accounts, certainly is not applying the same measure for them all. Perhaps Vlad was no more "monstruous" or "sadistic" than Louis XI of France, Mehmed II or Richard III of England.

Originally posted by Reginmund First of all, that was an attempt at a light, humorous tone, not a hostile one. I was hoping the sarcastic manner in which I wrote it would make that much clear. As for historical complexes, I don't believe I suffer from those, otherwise I doubt I would've been able to make light of it. I could of course have worded it differently, but that's just semantics. When I see a cruel bastard, I'll call him a cruel bastard, be he Turk or Romanian. Let's not waste our time making excuses for these people.

He is a important historical figure for turks so select your words carefully. And try to overcome your turkish complex

Hence "if the sources are to be believed". And don't forget that as with all historical discussions this is a living debate and even though Chilbudios' contribution was probably the most well-informed of the thread so far it does not constitute irrefutable authority, there is no such thing in the historical science.

I guess this is another opinion rather then discussion forum, so I'll simply express myne rather then debate with others about theirs.

Originally posted by Tyranos Lets face it, to the general public he was vampire, not military commander. Put  it this way,  to many Christians and namely the Romanian people, he was a great Hero but  to many Muslims, namely Turkish people, he was a evil Murderer.... and never the train shall meet. Its really about Nationialism/Politics more than anything else.

Edited by Byzantine Emperor - 03-Oct-2007 at 06:09

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor This topic is rediculous.  Why are we yet again comparing the brutality of medieval figures and making judgements from our modern perspective?  It is the "evil Basil II" syndrome all over again.  Yes, we know Vlad was brutal.  So were A, B, and...Z medieval rulers.  But we don't need to keep rehashing the same old anachronistic arguments over and over again.  Why not talk about interesting historical details of his reign, of which there has only been a little in here thus far?